The thing is with Hendrix is that he always used a major amount of distortion, or just plain freaking loud screaming amplifiers that you really can not hear the sound of the guitar all that much. Kinda like Bobby, if you are using a jillion effects and such, you really can't hear the guitar's sound. Therefore it really does not matter what the guitar sounds like. Not saying that Hendrix wasn't great. He certainly taught us a bunch about distortion. But in reality, we never did hear a clean sound out of him.

Chances are he was broke and could only afford a strat......................He had pretty big hands, the longer Fender Scale length probably suited him better.

From a custom guitar standpoint, Jerry used the Strat scale length with a Gibson tension. He also used a custom string spacing and height. From Alligator to Tophat this was pretty much the standard for him. But it was first excercised on Alligator and subsequently became the basic setup for each of his guitars. The wiring first starts out Stratocaster but with beefed up "roadworthy" components. Alligator does get an onboard preamp to allow for a beefier signal and no tone sucking from the cable lengths. And even though he eventually winds up with splittable humbuckers, buffer and his own OBEL, his wiring schemes were definately approached from a stratocaster wiring. Imho, his setup was definately more Strat then Gibson.

Also, Jimi could have played all kinds of guitars, and did, but his favorite clearly was a Strat.

~waldo

"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~quote from some guy at the TGP forum

"Without a doubt, the quality of your instrument will effect your tone, and any pickups, effects, amps, and microphones used along the way will also have an impact on the sound waves."~Cameron Mizell

Jimi also played a couple of flying V's, a Les Paul Custom and a smattering of other guitars, especially early and late in his career, so he couldn't have been that attached to the scale length. He did play strats way more than anything else, though.

I don't get gr8fullfred's disdain for the strat, though. It's recognized as one of the most ergonomic instruments ever produced, and has been used and preferred by enough incredible guitarists over the years that to say it's a bad design is questionable. I get the "won't return to tune if you're hammering the tremelo" issue; if that bugs you, either get a hardtail or block the bridge. I don't think it's ever been conclusively proved that a bolt-on is any less effective a neck join than set-neck construction. Though I personally dislike the heel on a standard strat, the deluxe version is fine.

waldo041 wrote:From a custom guitar standpoint, Jerry used the Strat scale length with a Gibson tension.~waldo

Where do you get Gibson string tension? He didn't tune down a 1/2 step or anything did he? How do you get lighter Gibson string tension with a Fender scale without tuning down? Its the tension that gives it the spanky tone too, not the frets being further apart etc.Am I missing something?

Incidentally, the equal space between the edges of the strings is the way classical guitars are traditionally fit. And to really get off topic,what was the total width from E to E at Jerry's bridge and nut? Was it vintage Fender 2 7/16, modern 2 3/16, or 2 1/16; or something else entirely?

The string tension is derived from the bridge and stoptail including the custom string tree/bar across the low E,A,D,G strings. Fender already had a tree on the B and high E. But the other was used to simulate the headstock angle of a Gibson. So the hardtail bridge and modified headstock string tree were to adjust for string tension.

Check out my Rosebud info for the spacings your after.

~waldo

"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~quote from some guy at the TGP forum

"Without a doubt, the quality of your instrument will effect your tone, and any pickups, effects, amps, and microphones used along the way will also have an impact on the sound waves."~Cameron Mizell

HendrixGarciaGilmoreTrowerABB (half the time)ClaptonWalshBeckBelewBolinCooderCrayDaleThe EdgeGallagherGuyHarrisonHollyJohnsonKnopflerRaittRobertsonOh, and that SRV cat.

None of them seemed to have the issues you bring up... or - they did and addressed them like all other players do (ie: me & u)

Dude, give it up. Its a timeless classical instrument upon which Jer's future platforms were built. If you can't handle one, don't buy one. But don't bring that BS here.

I agree with all of it, except ABB. Early on he played a Strat more, but now Warren only plays a Strat for Hendrix stuff, and this is also true in Mule(or maybe only in Mule), for the most part. I've never seen Derek play one. If you're referring to Duane or Dickey, there are photos, but the ones of Duane aren't on stage, and I think the ones of Dickey are post ABB.

95% (+) of string tension is a direct result of the scale length. If you think about it it's largely about the distance between nut & saddle.

Break angle on the headstock has the primary function of keeping the strings in the nut, much like T's. Break angle to the stop-tail does the same for the bridge. On a harmonica style bridge that angle needs to be pretty flat or the strings will break against the bridge. (Ask me how I figured that out. That's an embarassing story for which Pete B. paid the price.) That said, they do play into harmonics and tension. But the primary still has to have a frequency & amplitude centered around A=440.

waldo041 wrote:The string tension is derived from the bridge and stoptail including the custom string tree/bar across the low E,A,D,G strings. Fender already had a tree on the B and high E. But the other was used to simulate the headstock angle of a Gibson. So the hardtail bridge and modified headstock string tree were to adjust for string tension.

Check out my Rosebud info for the spacings your after.

~waldo

This has been discussed all over the web and off the web, and it's been determined pretty conclusively that string tension is determined by scale length and while other factors can affect the feel of the instrument, it doesn't change the actual tension for a given gauge of string.

"A given string, at a given pitch and scale length, will have one tension, no matter what is happening past the nut (or bridge)."

Stolen from TGP.

"Consider a headless guitar...

My view is that it`s more a percieved tension, in that with increased headstock angle comes a stiffer, less elastic feel to the strings.

Increasing the break angle reduces the ease with which the string can move through the nut and reduces the effect of the string length behind the nut.

It may sound counterintuitive but whenever a note is bent, the string behind the nut must stretch also, this contributes to a slightly "looser" more elastic feel and must (although I have no peer reviewed, scientific studies to confirm it), affect to some degree, the note "envelope".

!!! This is all from TGP !!!

But I will say that this hit's close to the measurable "truth" of the matter.

mgbills wrote:On a harmonica style bridge that angle needs to be pretty flat or the strings will break against the bridge. (Ask me how I figured that out. That's an embarassing story for which Pete B. paid the price.)

Tell me more!

On my Tiger most of the strings touch the back of the bridge. I've wondered/worried about that- you read very different opinions on that from respected luthiers. Some say it inhibits all sorts of "rich harmonics and overtones", others say hogwash- it's only what's between the nut and bridge that counts. The harmonica bridge allows a lot of room for intonation, but it's wide enough that you have to keep the tailpiece farther back or higher (which changes break angle) to prevent strings from resting on the back of the bridge. The "Garcia-endorsed higher action" makes it worse. I've strained my eyes looking at Tiger in the flesh and in close-up photos and it looks like the strings may have been touching the back of the bridge. Look at those photos that guy took in Indy last year that got to play the cocobolo wonder.

I've also read (although I haven't experimented with it) that the bridge break angle affects perceived string bending effort. Something like the greater the break angle the harder it "feels" to bend the string? Gibson guys talk about this a lot since it's easy(er) to raise and lower the stop tailpiece, and there are theories about improved tone and sustain if you have the tailpiece cranked down hard on the body. Supposedly break angle affects string tension, but I always figured that you need to have a specific tension to get like A=440. So if a higher break angle resulted in higher tension, you would need to tune down some to get the same note. Or not?

You would think that if the strings touching the back of the bridge had an impact that the same thing would be going on at the nut- maybe even more since there is a longer string length between the nut and the tuners- more vibration. If that is the case why wouldn't the trees used on Fenders be muting all those "rich overtones and harmonics"- and why wouldn't it be even worse on Alligator with the addition of the tree for the lower four?

Inquiring minds want to know!

"Do not write so that you can be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood." -Epictetus

I am dubious of a large effect. I think every detail affects the tone but I don't think this would make a major difference since the strings already contact the bridge that the second contact wouldn't make a significant difference. It just goes to another piece of metal at the tailpiece. If it vibrates and rattles it can be annoying when you're playing unplugged. It may dig a groove into your bridge over time.